I thought hard before writing the original post, as I knew there would be a lot of passionate Framework supporters (and, believe it or not, I am one!). However, my reason to post was not to create yet another “WDYT of the FW16 reviews” thread, but rather to gather thoughts on Framework’s approach to becoming a financially sustainable business through scaling. And to hopefully help @nrp and team as they lead their business forward.
Essentially, FW has TWO objectives:
- Deliver their mission to improve the world by creating long life, maintainable and upgradable products that reduce e-waste
- Fulfil their obligation to create a return for their shareholders/investors
On their website they say:
The conventional wisdom in the industry is that making products repairable makes them thicker, heavier, uglier, less robust, and more expensive. We’re here to prove that wrong and fix consumer electronics, one category at a time. Our philosophy is that by making well-considered design tradeoffs and trusting customers and repair shops with the access and information they need, we can make fantastic devices that are still easy to repair. Even better, what we’ve done to enable repair also opens up upgradeability and customization. This lets you get exactly the product you need and extends usable lifetime too
So, a couple of important points:
- “We will prove wrong the assumption that repairable products are thicker, heavier etc.”
- “You get exactly the product you need (that) extends usable lifetime too”
I think this is spot on. I too subscribe to the assumption that FW will only ship significant volume by creating product which is both “as good” as the laptops out there today AND repairable/well maintained in software. And FW will only deliver on the company objectives above (e-waste and financial) in a meaningful way if they succeed in penetrating the existing mass market.
However, whether we like it or not as enthusiasts, the mass market has pre-set expectations/must-have requirements on size, power, battery life, aesthetics etc. And reviewers are (mostly) assessing against this set of expectations because it is the expectation set of their audience (and, yes, that is also how they make money).
So now, let’s evaluate FW13/16 in this way:
- FW13 - broadly meets mass market expectations in terms of functionality and price as evidenced in positive reviews (from the same reviewers who critique FW16, and an increasing body of existing users). Hardware upgradability successfully demonstrated by FW over last couple of years. Software/firmware sustainability and support not yet delivered as evidenced by threads on this forum ref: outstanding issues (BSODs, PD bugs, security vulnerabilities and extremely long lead times for resolution e.g. 12th gen BIOS updates)
- FW16 - early days, but likely does not meet mass market expectations in terms of functionality, form and price. Receiving warm reception from enthusiasts (Linux users, gaming users, hobbyists/makers, those who will accept significant compromise for the environment etc.).
On top of that, FW16’s new hardware platform dilutes management attention, investment dollars and very limited (and valuable) FW team expertise, when the first product (FW13) is still not at a sustainable stage of its life. This might have been a decision worth the risk IF the market potential for FW16 was huge. But my suspicion is that it is not.
Again, I am a Framework supporter. I have bought their product and want it to succeed. But IMHO the company is at a delicate point in their life, and I hope that the FW16 doesn’t turn out to be a misstep, when a “bigger FW13” built on practically the same HW platform (think auto industry) would have been a much better fit against mark - the mass market.